Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of reversibility (authors-unblock exists), no permission/API-key requirements, no webhook side effect, and 'built-in suspend action' is filler.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('Suspend author' / 'Block an author') with no added information. There is no waste of length, but also little payload.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested request object, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to explain the block-vs-suspend difference, duration semantics, and how to reverse it. None of that is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% and the description mentions none of the nested parameters (id, reason, duration, projectId). It never connects 'limited time' to the duration field or its 24-hour default, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Suspend author', 'Block an author') and adds the scope qualifier 'for a limited time'. That qualifier hints at a distinction from the siblings authors-block/authors-unblock, though the description never names them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'limited time' suggests choosing this over a permanent block, but no alternative tool is named and no condition for when-not-to-use is given. An agent must infer the block-vs-suspend split from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.